The Bionic Wiki:Current Events Archive Jan2007a
new maintenance category and gallery feature Just wanted to point out the new category I created for maintenance here: Category:Orphaned Images. Its description should explain its function. It's worked out well for us at Muppet Wiki, so I hope it's helpful here. Also related to images, I thought I'd point out the tag which comes in handy for pages that have lots of images. An article looks funny when there are more images running down the side of the page without any text to fill in the white space it creates. Until such text is written (and detailed descriptions are encouraged), the gallery is a nice way of making the page more aesthetic. Check it out at Maskatron. — Scott (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC) :Should there be a time limit on how long we keep orphaned images? I mean, if they're just taking up space, shouldn't we delete them after a while? And hey!--I like that gallery mark-up! Although, I did sorta like the uniform stack on the right (it encouraged text to be filled in on the left, no?), I can see how a page with many images and little or no text is better served with a gallery -- as in the Maskatron example. — Paul (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think in the case of Maskatron, there's potentially very little text that can be added -- certainly not enough to fill up the white space that was there. w:c:muppet:The Statue of Liberty might be a better example. ::As for Orphaned Images, my unofficial rule on Muppet Wiki has been a few days. In reality, if someone hasn't used an image within a few hours of uploading it, then why upload it at all? It's assumed that when you upload an image, you intend to use it on a page. Otherwise The Bionic Wiki just becomes a dumping ground and we want to encourage actual content. — Scott (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Naming conventions for quote presentation And I'm going to start this with a big "gak"... I just had a horrible thought... all of the quotes I've entered so far (and the number is considerable) use first names only. Since we seem to have decided to use full names to start an episode and surnames during the rest of the episode, does this mean I'm going to have to go through all the quotes and change 'em? I hope not... :\ — Grace (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC) :Oh, wow, I didn't even catch that. I wouldn't worry about it, Grace. We'll convert the existing ones episode by episode. I suggest cutting and pasting the quote sections (from the edit tab, not the article tab--to preserve your mark-up) into a text editor and doing a Find and Replace on all names you want to change. Then cut and paste the new version back into the wiki. You'll be done in a snap. And with our help, they'll all be converted in no time. — Paul (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ::UPDATE: Okay, I went through about 13 episodes and changed the names. Check the log and review them for errors. I'll take another pass for more later. — Paul (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC) :::I'm going to be completely evil here... :)... I've been doing some poking around at some of the other TV show wikis, and I've noticed a trend. Those TV shows where the characters are referred to by their surnames tend to be those TV shows with an almost military feel to them, or where there is a definite command structure in place - ie. Star Trek, Stargate, etc. But if you look at shows like "24" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", they have no problem referring to the characters by their first names, because that's how they were known in the series. I suppose that's why I'm being such a pain about this - because both SMDM and BW are shows where the characters are known by their familiar names, not their surnames, and I hafta tell you guys - it's seriously bugging me having to refer to Jaime as "Sommers" and Steve as "Austin". So I'm hoping that people will perhaps give the idea some second thought regarding the use of the more familiar first names when writing their articles. If I'm outvoted on this one, then so be it - I'll bow to the majority... :)... but I'll definitely be bugged about it... :) — Grace (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Okay, I'm running into some problems changing the quotes to the surname format - and the main one is that when you read the quotes, it sounds damned weird when "Sommers" says "Oscar, blah blah blah" and "Goldman" says "Jaime, blah blah blah". I, for one, vote that we at least leave the quotes as is. — Grace (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) :::::I certainly don't have any objections to that. The quotes are presented in a less formal way than the remainder of an article. So sure, stick to the way you've been doing it. You've got my vote. :) — redrain85 (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC) ::::::(There are way too many single headers devoted the the name issue; I've consolidated the two most recent to bring some order back to it. In the future, unless the train of thought of an issue significantly changes, let's try to keep it all in one flow.) ::::::My opinion on the name issue hasn't changed: I think the tenor of the shows should guide our wiki. Only the primary characters should be by cited by their first names. All other characters, actors and other real people should be addressed by their surnames. I think we should vote on it and be done with it. — Paul (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I do agree on this - that is, to have a vote on this. However, how do we go about actually doing this? — Grace (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC) :I haven't been following this discussion, but in regards to how to set up a voting system, you're welcome to review our policy at Muppet Wiki and adopt it for your needs. — Scott (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC) ::I like the policy a lot, Scott. It's very concise and takes into account the fact that everyone is an individual with their own opinions. You said that I could adapt if for our needs, so that's exactly what I'm going to do, since it seems that I'm the one who has the most problem with the naming convention so far. — Grace (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) How to present deleted scenes in the quotes ... I mean, after all, this part *is* my forte... :)... I just wanted to know how I should go about doing the above. Having had a chance to watch the first two seasons in glorious DVD *and* from grey-market discs, it's really easy to see what got cut on SciFi, and - as you might well imagine - a lot of what got cut were lines of dialogue. I'm just trying to figure out a way to indicate that "this particular line of dialogue got cut" in the quotes, if that makes any sense. Take a look at "Kill Oscar (Part III) and "Sister Jaime". I've tried two different ways (although the one for KO looks pretty messy to me), and the second way - well, since I do use italics to indicate an emphasis on a word, even italicizing an entire phrase looks kinda weird. This also means that however I indicate a cut line of dialogue, there is going to need to be a reference somewhere on the page indicating that that is what it is, if that makes any sense. I am completely open to suggestions on this one, because I'm at a loss right now. Otherwise, I'm going to continue on with my merry brand of mayhem here... :) — Grace (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :Okay, lemme know what you think... I wasn't sure if traditional HTML was usable within a wiki, but I discovered that some aspects of it are. So, in the "Sister Jaime" quotes, I've experimented with changing the colour of deleted text to red and green. Mind you, red is awfully close to that magenta sort-of colour that is used for links that aren't linked yet, so maybe I'll go with green. But in any event, lemme know what you think. — Grace (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ::Some good ideas, Grace. I would shy away from making any color changes as the color scheme of the wiki may change in the future. I would simply use an asterisk (*), brackets, italics (you can always underline a word to show emphasis), or parentheses: :::* Steve: Forget it. :::[Jaime: (eyes narrowing) Commander, can an Air Force officer aboard a Navy submarine give orders to a civilian who isn't listening to him anyway?] :::''Commander Gordon: Ah... leave me out of this, you two. We've got two suits up in the forward torpedo room. You decide what happens.'' :::(Jaime: (smugly gestures two for emphasis) Two suits.) ::— Paul (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :::That sounds good to me, Paul ... I'll go through what I've done already and fix things up. Personally, I like the suggestion of underlining emphasized words, and italicizing the cut dialogue. It's subtle, without being so subtle that people don't notice it. Having said that, what about a reference on the page somewhere, indicating that the italicized text is exactly that - cut dialogue. How would you suggest we go about doing that?? — Grace (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) How to integrate the Reunion movies? I was thinking that for the main page, we could have a third column below the first two, in the center. The picture could be a snapshot from the "Return" movie with Steve and Jaime together, or even better it could be the publicity still where we see Steve and Jaime in wedding attire from "Ever After" (even if this would be something of a spoiler). Maybe someone could add a caption to the picture in a bionic-style font saying "Reunions" or "Reunion Movies" or something like that. What do you guys think? It would be pretty easy to complete these entries, fairly quickly, since they are pretty much standalone stories. — redrain85 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) :They're already integrated in Category:Six Million Dollar Man movies. Like you, I had originally thought to make them "top-level" categories. But then I reasoned: our platform for the wiki is the two episodic television series. The movies, be they parents (the 3 pilots) or products (the 3 reunions), are, in essence, removed from the two shows. (this reminds me to finish Jaime's sub-categories!) — Paul (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC) ::Oops! Yes, so they are already there. I completely overlooked them. My bad. And I guess you're right, they don't really need an entirely new top-level catgeory. But I will add them to the empty "Bionic Woman Movies" category then. — redrain85 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Character name references in the episode guides It seems to me that I recall reading about this particular topic somewhere else, but damned if I can remember, so I'm going to bring it up again. Exactly how are we going to refer to the familiars when entering stuff into the episode guides? For example, are we going to refer to Jaime as "Jaime", "Jaime Sommers" or "Sommers"?? This also applies to Steve, Oscar and Rudy, since they're in practically every episode. Personally speaking, I prefer to use the familiar "Jaime" - "Jaime Sommers" sounds too formal and "Sommers" sounds too cold. That is, however, simply IMHO. — Grace (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC) :I've been using "Austin" and "Sommers" as a way of being very formal when I write the entries. I try to slip in a "Steve Austin" and "Jaime Sommers" now and then, to keep it from getting too monotonous. I prefer not to use "Steve" and "Jaime" because then the writing doesn't sound very formal. My take is that this is an encyclopedia (albeit an online one), so I'm writing the entries in such a way that they would look like they were written in one. But that's just me. — redrain85 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC) :::Yeah, Scott and I addressed this (scroll down to: name references). Ha! It seems Scott and Rod come down on the formality ground while Grace and I have no problem using the first names of our prime cast. As much as it pains me to write, "Sommers races to stop the missile," I suppose it wouldn't kill me. ;) — Paul (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Yeah, I've sorta been doing that myself... :) ... someone "fixed" a nitpick I'd entered for "The Jailing of Jaime" so it was more formal looking, so, reluctantly and begrudgingly, any further nitpicks I've been entering have been formal... ick... :) — Grace (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) :::::Well you know what's funny, I just told Valor recently that I actually would prefer to write things in a more light-hearted tone, with humor and speculation interspersed. That was the way I wrote things on The Bionic Page. But, that wouldn't be appropriate for a Wiki. So if I have to suffer . . . ;) But seriously, I guess first name vs. surname is not a big deal. Mind you, it would be good if everyone wrote things in a consistent way. Otherwise, it will be strange to see one article use all first names while the next uses all surnames. — redrain85 (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::::::Well, howzabout this... the first time we see a character's name in an entry, we could do Jaime Sommers, but if we have to use the name again further on into the entry, we can then go to Jaime, because it's obvious who we're referring to. — Grace (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC) :::::::Okay, so I've just started contributing to the Wiki (wo-who!), but have been reading/following it all along. I have to say that I agree with Grace (and Paul) that the first reference to the prime characters be their first and last name, and all subsequent references be by their first name. For all other characters, I agree that the more formal surname sounds appropriate. There really didn't seem to be a FINAL agreement from the discussion above. If it's a matter of time, I would be more than happy to spend the next week making the ALL of the changes to The Bionic Woman entries. — Karen (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC) :::::::::Hi, Karen! If you want to do that, that's great. Buf don't feel restricted to it, these changes will happen eventually over time. If there's something else upon which you'd rather spend your wiki time, please go for it! 13:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Deleted scenes that can't be verified I have information for some supposedly deleted scenes in some episodes. The only trouble is, I cannot verify all of these. What I would like to do — for now — is include them anyway, but make a note in each case where it has not been verified. Is there any special convention or procedure for doing this? I haven't come across anything in the Wiki help files that advises on this, but then again I haven't dug that deeply yet. — redrain85 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC) :Are these scenes that were deleted from original broadcast or from syndication? If the latter, we could resolve them before you post by checking the available UK discs (many of us have them). Moreover, do we want to cite from what syndication package we draw our comparisons? Cuts were left up to the buyer, so I'm sure they vary between big cable networks like from Sci-Fi Channel to local stations, both foreign and domestic. Is it really that important? Perhaps just knowing that a particular scene was cut is enough. — Paul (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC) ::That's the problem, I don't always know if the scenes were deleted from the original broadcast or in syndication. The majority of the cuts were done in syndication, but the status of a few are unknown to me. Regardless, my main concern is simply that I don't want to cite cuts that turn out to be hearsay — the figment of someone's imagination. I do have access to the episodes on DVD, and some of these deleted scenes I have heard about are still not there. My conclusion was to cite these deletions anyway — until proven to be incorrect, via a script — but place a note beside each one that has not been verified, stating as much. — redrain85 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC) :::Understood. I say go for it. Gives us another reason to acquire scripts. And I think a simple, To Be Confirmed-type notation is all you need. — Paul (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Okay, will do. :) I also asked for second opinions about the deleted scenes, in the Bionicfans discussion group. — redrain85 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC) :::::In those cases, you can mark the questionable content with which will place them in Category:Active talk pages until a source can be found. This will let other active contributors who normally check that category know that information is needed on an article. — Scott (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC) ::::::Also, to see the template in action, look at the sandbox. — Scott (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC) :::::::Thanks, Scott. The citation template is exactly what I was looking for. I knew it existed, but didn't immediately find it in the help pages. Admittedly, I didn't try digging that deep. I'll do my best to keep learning the Wiki markup, though. :) — redrain85 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Episode navigation I'm interested in hearing thoughts on the template I just placed on Welcome Home, Jaime (Part II). It's tricky because technically, there are no previous episodes in The Bionic Woman. But it would be remiss to not have some way of easily navigating throughout a story arc that goes over both shows. The problem is that if you're browsing on Welcome Home, Jaime and you want to naviagte to the next story, all of the following "next episodes" are going to be in The Bionic Woman. I was thinking maybe that the episode naviagtion template would be strict to the progression of each series separately, and that another story arc template could be used for special cases. Suggestions? — Scott (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) :I just happened to notice it, and I personally think it's a very kool idea. I also agree with you that we should stick separately to each series separately, except for those multi-series story arcs that occasionally happen.— Grace (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC) ::I agree with your idea, Scott. That sounds like the best approach to handling navigation between episodes. Create templates that are native to each series, but create special ones for the exceptions where the shows crossed over. — redrain85 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) :::Sounds good. I know of three crossover stories: "Welcome Home, Jaime," "The Return of Bigfoot" and "Kill Oscar"; are there others? — Scott (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Nope! You are correct, those were the only three crossovers. — redrain85 (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) :::::Okay, I took care of the crossovers with separate templates since there are only three of them (easier that way). As for episode navigation for the rest of the series, if folks would like to start implementing that, you can see how it works at Template:Epnav and as always, feel free to ask questions. — Scott (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ::::::Whoohoo! — Paul (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)